Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Mexico”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 721 records · Page 40
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, along with the geospatial data describing the spatial units where water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. We collected water rights databases from 11 western United States states either by downloading them from publicly accessible web portals, or by contacting state water management representatives; detailed descriptions of where and when the data was collected is provided in the README.txt, as well as Lisk et al.(in review). This collection of data are those raw water rights. Each state formats their data differently, meaning that file types, field availability, and names vary from state to state. Note, the data provided here reflects the state of the water rights databases at the time we collected the data; updates have likely occurred in many states. Some pieces of information are common among all states. These are: priority date, volume or flow of water allowed by the right, stated water use of the right, and some means of identifying the geography and source of the water pertaining to the right - typically the coordinates of the Point of Diversion (PoD) of a waterbody or well. Arizona regulates water in a different way than the other 10 states. Outside of some relatively small critical agricultural areas called Active Management Areas (AMAs), Arizona does not maintain any water rights. However, the state does require registration of surface and groundwater pumping devices, which includes disclosing the mechanical specifics of the devices. We used these records as a proxy for water rights. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. In addition, the following states have requested specifically worded disclaimers to be included with their data. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." The available data is provided as a series of compressed files, which each containing the full data collected from each state. Some of the files have been renamed, to more easily know which state the data belongs to. The file renaming was also required as some files from different states had the same name. In other cases, the data for a state has been placed in a folder indicating which state it belongs to - as the state organized its data by selected subregions. Below is a brief description of the format of the collected data from each state. ArizonaRights_StatementOfClaimants: A folder containing a database of interconnected CSV files. The soc_erd.pdf file contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with SOC_MAIN.csv in the center of the page. ArizonaRights_SurfaceWaterRightsData: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 10 associated CSVs. SurfaceWater.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with ADWR_SW_APPL_REGRY.csv. ArizonaRights_Well55Registry: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 59 associated CSVs. Wells55.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with WellRegistry.shp. CaliforniaRights_eWRIMS_directDatabase: A folder containing a collection of four "series" Microsoft Excel files, as either XLS or XLSX. The four "series": byCounty, byEntity (what type of legal entity holds the right), byUse (stated water use), and byWatershed, are various methods by which the California water rights are organized within the state's database. However, it was observed that by only collecting a single series, not all water rights were being provided. So, essentially, the majority of records within each "series" are copies of each other, with each "series" containing some unique records. ColoradoRights_NetAmounts: A folder containing 78 CSV files, with one file per Colorado Water District. IdahoRights_PointOfDiversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Idaho. IdahoRights_PlaceOfUse: A Shapefile containing the Place of Use polygons for the entire state of Idaho. MontanaRights_WaterRights: A Geodatabase file containing the Points of Diversion and Places of Use for the entire state of Montana. The name of the Points of Diversion Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WRDIV", and the name of the Places of Use Feature Layer is "WRPOU". NevadaRights_POD_Sites: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Nevada. NewMexicoRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of New Mexico. OregonRights_state_shp: A folder containing 36 Shapefiles and are split between "pod" (Point of Diversion) and "pou" (Place of Use) for each water management basin within Oregon. In other words, each basin has one "pod" file and one "pou" file. The "pod" files are point shapes, and the "pou" files are polygons. UtahRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Utah. WashingtonRights_WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD: A Geodatabase file containing both the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Washington. The name of the Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD". WyomingRights: A folder containing four subdirectories, one for each Wyoming Water Division. Each Division directory includes a varying number of subdirectories for each Wyoming Water District. Each District folder contains two copies of the Point of Diversion records for that area, with one copying being in CSV and one copy in Microsoft Excel XLS format.

Lisk, Matthew↗
DOE OSTI2025

CERF: IM3 Projected Western US Power Plant Locations

Overview The Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility (CERF) model is an open-source geospatial python package that provides new power plant locations at a 1km resolution. The model ingests U.S. state or regional-scale electricity system capacity expansion plans, such as those produced by the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM-USA), and identifies feasible, site-specific locations for individual new power plants (renewable and non-renewable). CERF combines high-resolution geospatial suitability analyses with an economic algorithm that selects individual plant siting locations based on grid interconnection costs and the locational marginal value of new generation. The model incorporates a wide range of dynamic constraints and opportunities, such as protected lands, population density, existing infrastructure, and water availability. This dataset provides CERF power plant siting results for IM3 Phase 2 simulations across eight different scenarios for the Western US through 2055. The scenarios include combinations of two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States (see, https://tgw-data.msdlive.org/). These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight simulations are: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 CERF siting results in this dataset correspond to capacity expansion plans in the GCAM-USA IM3 Phase 2 simulation data and are available for each of the above scenarios. Data Details Temporal Range: 2015-2055 in 5-year timesteps. Note that 2015 is the experiment base year and 2020 and beyond represent model simulation years. Spatial Range: Plant locations are provided for the eleven states in the Western US including Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Spatial Resolution: 1 km-squared, provided in x and y coordinates Geospatial Projection: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) File Type: csv The dataset contains subdirectories for each of the eight scenarios described in the overview. Each scenario folder contains two subfolders with the following information: 1. Power Plant Data This directory contains a single .csv file of power plant locations for both pre-existing (non-CERF sited plants in operation in 2015) and new (CERF-sited) power plants across the temporal range along with additional CERF model output parameters for CERF-sited plants. Plant with a siting year earlier than 2020 correspond to facilities that are operational leading into the first timestep CERF simulation. For a more detailed description of CERF model output parameters, see the CERF model documentation. Note that the cerf_plant_id parameter is unique within each scenario file but not across scenario files. Parameter Descriptions scenario - Name of scenario cerf_plant_id - Unique siting identifier cerf_sited - If True, indicates that plant was sited by CERF model. If False, indicates pre-existing facility region_name - Name of region (state) tech_id - Technology ID tech_name - Full generation technology name inclusive of cooling type (if applicable) and additional characteristics tech_simple - Simplified generation technology type unit_size_mw - Power plant unit size (MW) xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) index - Index position in the flattend 2D array buffer_in_km - Exclusion buffer around site (km) sited_year - Year of siting retirement_year - Year of retirement lmp_zone - Locational marginal price (LMP) zone ID locational_marginal_price_usd_per_mwh - Locational marginal price ($/MWh) generation_mwh_per_year - Generation output (MWh/yr) operating_cost_usd_per_year - Cost of plant operations ($/yr) net_operational_value - Net operational value based on LMP and and operating costs ($/yr) interconnection_cost - Cost of interconnection for transmission & gas pipeline (if applicable) net_locational_cost -- Difference of interconnection cost and operating value ($/yr) capacity_factor_fraction - Capacity factor (fraction) carbon_capture_rate_fraction - Carbon capture rate (fraction) fuel_co2_content_tons_per_btu - Fuel CO2 content (tons/Btu) fuel_price_usd_per_mmbtu - Fuel price ($/MMBtu) fuel_price_esc_rate_fraction - Fuel price escalation rate (fraction) heat_rate_btu_per_kWh - Heat rate (Btu/kWh) lifetime_yrs - Technology lifetime for annuity (years) operational_life_yrs - Operational lifetime for retirement (years) variable_om_usd_per_mwh - Variable operation and maintenance costs of yearly capacity use ($/MWh) variable_om_esc_rate_fraction - Variable operation and maintenance costs escalation rate (fraction) carbon_tax_usd_per_ton - Carbon tax ($/ton) carbon_tax_esc_rate_fraction - Carbon tax escalation rate (fraction) 2. Storage Data This directory contains information on new and pre-existing energy storage facilities operational in each timestep along with various storage operational parameters. The 2015 timestep provides pre-existing energy storage data and corresponds with facilities that are operational leading into the first model simulation timestep. Note that coordinates in the storage files correspond to the interconnection point on the grid (substation location), not individual energy storage locations. Energy storage is added in a cumulative process at each given interconnection point. That is, each individual file provides the total operational storage capacity interconnected to the specified substation for the given timestep, inclusive of previously installed storage at that location and new storage installed in that timestep at that location. Parameters scenario - Name of scenario timestep - Simulation timestep name - Unique storage identifier s_typ - Type of energy storage technology (battery or pumped storage hydro) s_node - Node ID of interconnecting substation xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) charge_rate - Maximum charge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) discharge_rate - Maximum discharge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) duration - Duration of storage system (hours) max_SoC - Allowed maximum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) min_SoC -Allowed minimum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) charge_eff - Efficiency of charge (fraction between 0 and 1) discharge_eff - Efficiency of discharge (fraction between 0 and 1) Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program.

CERF↗
DOE OSTI2026

Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Licensing and Permitting [Slides]

This presentation provides an overview of the licensing, permitting, and regulatory frameworks governing Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) across multiple international contexts. It outlines foundational permitting considerations - including safety standards, siting requirements, regulatory and environmental obligations, and interconnection processes - alongside typical pathways for installation, approval, and inspection. The presentation summarizes key technical standards such as NFPA 855 and IEEE guidelines, and emphasizes best practices for safe and effective deployment. A series of detailed case studies from South Africa, Chile, Mexico, Brazil, Costa Rica, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic illustrates how different countries structure approval authority, evaluate environmental impacts, and integrate BESS into national grid systems. The deck concludes with insights on emerging challenges, including evolving regulatory frameworks, financial viability, and the need for pricing mechanisms that accurately value storage services.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2026

West Africa Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) Capacity Building - Discussion of BESS Tariffs: Payment Structures and Case Studies [Slides]

Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) are emerging as critical assets for enhancing grid reliability, integrating renewable energy, and enabling system flexibility. Yet, the regulatory and financial frameworks that determine how BESS projects are compensated vary widely across jurisdictions. This presentation explores international case studies - from Honduras, Costa Rica, Chile, South Africa, Mexico, and Brazil - to illustrate how tariff design and payment structures are evolving to support large-scale BESS deployment. The cases highlight a range of ownership and revenue models, including cost-of-service mechanisms, energy and capacity payments, and market-based arbitrage, as well as hybrid approaches under development. The discussion will examine key challenges such as defining remuneration for ancillary services, addressing double charging, and accounting for efficiency losses and degradation over time. By comparing experiences across markets, the presentation identifies emerging best practices for valuing BESS and designing tariffs that align technical performance with economic incentives, providing insights for regulators, utilities, and policymakers pursuing storage integration.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2020

Energy Snapshot - Belize

This profile provides a snapshot of the energy landscape of Belize, a Central American country bordering Mexico to the north, Guatemala to the west and south, and the Caribbean Sea to the east. Although not an island nation, Belize is included in this energy snapshot series because it is a member of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), an alliance of 15 Caribbean nations in the region.

44 EE - Strategic Programs, Energy Transition Init↗
DOE OSTI2021

Emerging Issues in the Development of Geologic Models for Gas Hydrate Numerical Simulation

The numerical simulation of gas hydrate reservoirs has evolved greatly in recent years. Scientific and industrial drilling programs have acquired detailed characterization data from gas hydrate systems in Alaska, Japan, India, Korea, China, and the Gulf of Mexico. These data provide invaluable calibration points that serve to ground-truth hydrate reservoir modeling efforts.

Boswell, Ray↗
DOE OSTI2023

Is Clean Hydrogen Production a Good Fit for Questa? Intermediate Feasibility Study Results

NREL conducted a feasibility study for a clean hydrogen production facility that would be located in Questa, New Mexico. This slide deck presents the history of the coalition of stakeholders that received NREL technical assistance through the Department of Energy's Communities Leading Energy Action Program. It describes how hydrogen is generated and its end uses. It describes two conceptual applications explored in the feasibility analysis, a grid-tied power generation and long-term storage application and a heavy-duty vehicle fueling application. The presentation details the configuration of these to applications in the Questa pilot facility, including system components, required inputs (water, electricity, and land for pv generation), and outputs in kilograms of hydrogen, megawatt hours of power delivered, and hours of vehicle hours of operation. The presentation addresses key concerns raised by groups engaged through a public outreach process, including safety, health, and environmental issues; water use; visual impacts; and costs and alternatives.

heavy-duty vehicle fueling↗
DOE OSTI2023

Historical Pattern Analysis of Global Geothermal Power Capacity Development: Preprint

Between 1913 and 1958, Italy was the only country with an operational geothermal power plant until New Zealand installed its first plant in 1958. At present, 24 countries are involved in the geothermal power market, and they have a combined installed capacity of 16,127 GW. This study analyzes the historical patterns of geothermal power capacity in the world and in individual countries to investigate the ideal global geothermal development pattern by examining the annual cumulative capacity (ACC) and the annual capacity addition (ACA) graphs of the historical development of geothermal power capacity in 24 countries. First, the global patterns are analyzed using these graphs in five periods (1945-1957, 1958-1976, 1977-1991, 1992-2002, and 2003-2020) that are marked by a series of characteristics of ACA peaks separated by two major troughs. Then, five characteristic patterns are developed in five periods globally. These patterns correspond to the early-stage linear, the first acceleration, the first steady-state linear, the second acceleration, and the second steady-state linear developments. A positive relationship exists between global patterns and the 5-year shifted oil-price curve: two major factors influenced global development: 1) increasing oil prices and increasing awareness of global climate change, and 2) global development of geothermal power. Last, we investigate these patterns in each country. The top ten countries, which comprise 93.3% of the world's total installed capacity are separated into five groups based on the availability and characteristics of patterns globally developed in five periods. Group-1 (the United States) has an installed capacity of 3,794 MW, Group-2 (Mexico and Philippines) 963-1935 MW, Group-3 (New Zealand, Italy, Iceland, and Japan) 601-1,037 MW, and Group-4 (Indonesia, Kenya, and Turkiye) 944-2,356 MW. The remaining 14 countries (6.7%), which are called Group 5, are still in an immature stage and have installed capacities of 7-262 MW and are not involved in pattern analysis. Overall, geothermal power in the world is in its third stage of development, which had its peak development after 1977. A fourth development peak may be expected to occur after this through business-as-usual cases. The biggest barrier to the development of the global geothermal power market is the risk associated with exploration and drilling. If risk mitigation systems and funds are employed, the growth of geothermal power production projects could accelerate.

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Application of a Density Law via Python for Aqueous Plutonium Nitrate

A predictive density tool has been developed in Python to reduce bias and uncertainty in nuclear criticality safety calculations for plutonium nitrate systems. The Pitzer Method and an empirical method were implemented into the tool, allowing for plutonium nitrate density calculations. Additionally, the Python tool can generate atom densities for a MCNP6.2 material card using the density from the selected method and directly the densities into a prepared MCNP6 input text file. The material card and density are calculated based on customizable user inputs of plutonium content, nitric acid content, temperature, plutonium isotope weight percentages and impurity concentrations. The Python tool has been validated and verified against the International Handbook of Evaluated Criticality Safety Benchmark Experiments to predict densities within a root mean square error of 1.0% for the Pitzer method and 1.8% for the empirical method. These errors in density were shown to lead to a ±0.5% error in MCNP6.2 calculated k effective for the Pitzer method and a ±1.7% error for the Empirical method. Simultaneous work is also being done at the University of New Mexico and Los Alamos National Laboratory to create a similar tool for plutonium chloride solutions, which aims to provide the accreditation of the chlorine absorption. These capabilities will not only provide more accurate models but also lead the way towards a better understanding of solution systems and potential relaxation in the conservatism of the current aqueous plutonium processing limits.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Historical Pattern Analysis of Global Geothermal Power Capacity Development

Between 1913 and 1958, Italy was the only country with an operational geothermal power plant until New Zealand installed its first plant in 1958. At present, 24 countries are involved in the geothermal power market, and they have a combined installed capacity of 16,127 GW. This study analyzes the historical patterns of geothermal power capacity in the world and in individual countries to investigate the ideal global geothermal development pattern by examining the annual cumulative capacity (ACC) and the annual capacity addition (ACA) graphs of the historical development of geothermal power capacity in 24 countries. First, the global patterns are analyzed using these graphs in five periods (1945-1957, 1958-1976, 1977-1991, 1992-2002, and 2003-2020) that are marked by a series of characteristics of ACA peaks separated by two major troughs. Then, five characteristic patterns are developed in five periods globally. These patterns correspond to the early-stage linear, the first acceleration, the first steady-state linear, the second acceleration, and the second steady-state linear developments. A positive relationship exists between global patterns and the 5-year shifted oil-price curve: two major factors influenced global development: 1) increasing oil prices and increasing awareness of global climate change, and 2) global development of geothermal power. Last, we investigate these patterns in each country. The top ten countries, which comprise 93.3% of the world's total installed capacity are separated into five groups based on the availability and characteristics of patterns globally developed in five periods. Group-1 (the United States) has an installed capacity of 3,794 MW, Group-2 (Mexico and Philippines) 963-1935 MW, Group-3 (New Zealand, Italy, Iceland, and Japan) 601-1,037 MW, and Group-4 (Indonesia, Kenya, and Turkiye) 944-2,356 MW. The remaining 14 countries (6.7%), which are called Group 5, are still in an immature stage and have installed capacities of 7-262 MW and are not involved in pattern analysis. Overall, geothermal power in the world is in its third stage of development, which had its peak development after 1977. A fourth development peak may be expected to occur after this through business-as-usual cases. The biggest barrier to the development of the global geothermal power market is the risk associated with exploration and drilling. If risk mitigation systems and funds are employed, the growth of geothermal power production projects could accelerate.

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Evaluation of Techniques for Vegetation Removal from UAV-Based Photogrammetric DSM near WIPP Land Withdrawal Act Boundary, NM

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is located within New Mexico's karst landscape and is the United States' only deep geologic radioactive waste repository which isolates transuranic waste from defense activities underground in a bedded salt formation. Characteristic karst topography in this region is made up of material (such as limestone) that can be dissolved by water over a long period of time, and includes features such as springs, surface streams, sinking streams, caves, and sinkholes. Karst features can potentially impact the integrity of the waste repository in the future and compromise WIPP's performance, particularly when coupled with incompatible land-use activities within the Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) boundary as well as increased water withdrawals outside the LWA. In order to better capture the ground surface topography to support hydrology modeling efforts, the U.S. DOE has enlisted FIU to develop a high-resolution digital elevation model (DEM). In a previous field study, a high-resolution digital surface model (DSM) of an adjacent representative site, Basin 6, was developed by photogrammetry using aerial images captured with unmanned aerial vehicles. The DSM generated was based on point clouds representing the entire landscapes, including points of terrain, vegetation and infrastructure. These above-ground features need to be removed to create a DSM/DEM with good representation of the bare ground. In recent years, many techniques including both pre- and post-processing of DSMs, were developed for vegetation removal with varied success. This research focuses on applying and comparing various vegetation removal methods using point clouds generated of the Basin 6 pilot study area. The 3D RGB-based point cloud classification using Python scripts was a modification of the procedure by Themistocleous (2019). The method using Liblas classifies the point cloud three-dimensionally, whereas the method by Themistocleous (2019) is two-dimensional. The preliminary result of the method using Liblas, however, still had a large amount of vegetation remaining compared to the Pix4D Machine Learning method. The vegetation layer remains highly visible in the DEMs processed using the vegetation indices as opposed to the Pix4D Machine Learning method, which produces a DEM where mostly bare ground is seen. Further modifications to the input parameters are required to improve the vegetation vs. bare ground classification using this approach. The next step will be to improve the method using Liblas and to also test other vegetation removal methods found in the literature review to compare them against the two described here.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Removing the Cloak of Secrecy from Legacy Cleanup at Los Alamos national Laboratory - 20395

With the establishment in 2018 of the Los Alamos Legacy Cleanup Contract, the Department of Energy's (DOE) Environmental Management Los Alamos Field Office (EM-LA) and its contractor Newport News Nuclear BWXT Los Alamos (N3B) embarked on an expansive program to engage a broad range of local and regional stakeholders in the decision-making process for cleanup of legacy wastes (pre-1999) at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). From the inception of LANL during the Manhattan Project until the issuance of the new cleanup contract, the site was managed by a single management and operations (M and O) contactor whose main focus was national security. Segmenting from laboratory operations a separate cleanup contract managed by DoE's Office of Environmental Management (EM) brought new opportunities for the cleanup of legacy waste. That change likewise has opened new opportunities for engaging the community on legacy cleanup decisions. The new legacy cleanup contract - an unclassified contract - emphasizes public outreach, marking a cultural shift in how stakeholders in Los Alamos and throughout northern New Mexico are engaged. Without the constraints of classified work, EM-LA and N3B have increased the level of transparency with the public regarding cleanup activities. EM-LA and N3B have crafted an approach that best meets the values, priorities and needs of the neighboring communities by adapting the model successfully employed at Rocky Flats. Through enhanced stakeholder involvement, EM-LA will implement decisions that have considered broad input and deliver a safe and efficient cleanup of the site. EM-LA and N3B began the expanded stakeholder outreach program in January 2019, leading up to four Environmental Management Cleanup Forums held in the summer of 2019. EM-LA and N3B are now in the process of initiating a series of meetings with various stakeholder groups to determine their 'values' as they relate to cleanup using a novel approach that elicits and records values. The entire process is documented, ensuring that should questions arise about how, when and why decisions were made, they can be easily addressed. In addition to other public meetings to present cleanup scenarios and solicit active public involvement in cleanup decisions, the EM-LA and N3B approach involves discussions with stakeholders who want to explore specific technical issues and cleanup discussions in depth. EM-LA and N3B are also evaluating and implementing a variety of communications tools to help ensure the engagement plan sets the gold standard for transparency in legacy cleanup and stakeholder involvement. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Investigation of Non-Nuclear Plowshare and Vela Uniform Sites - 20447

The Plowshare Program was initiated by the Atomic Energy Commission, a predecessor agency to the US Department of Energy (DOE), to investigate peaceful uses of nuclear devices. 'Vela Uniform,' part of the broader Project Vela, was designed to use nuclear and other explosions to increase the capability of the United States to detect nuclear tests through seismicity. There were underground nuclear tests conducted off the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) as part of the Plowshare Program (e.g., the Gnome-Coach, New Mexico, Site) and the Vela Uniform Program (e.g., Project Shoal, Nevada, Site) at which the DOE Office of Legacy Management (LM) has been conducting long-term surveillance and maintenance since fiscal year (FY) 2006. There are many additional locations, particularly for the Plowshare Program, that were considered for nuclear tests or used for non-nuclear tests off the NNSS. Some were only named on paper, but at 30 sites, field work such as drilling test wells and conducting tests using conventional explosives was done. A Plowshare nuclear explosion had been proposed at Project Chariot but was canceled in 1962. In 1992, the discovery of soils contaminated with radionuclides from tracer experiments led to a cleanup by the DOE Office of Environmental Management (EM) of the Project Chariot, Alaska, Site, which was completed in 1994. Following the cleanup of the Project Chariot site, EM was concerned that there might be environmental liabilities at other Plowshare or Vela Uniform sites where field investigations were done, even if the nuclear test was never conducted. The EM Program at the Nevada Site Office began examining records and visiting selected locations that were evaluated for Plowshare and Vela Uniform non-nuclear tests. In total, 161 Plowshare and 14 Vela Uniform sites or proposed projects were identified. The Desert Research Institute (DRI) created summaries of the work carried out at these sites and developed a collection of unclassified documents for them. Preliminary investigations had been conducted at these sites by both LM and EM since the early 2000's. In 2016, in preparation for accepting responsibility for the sites, LM started a program to determine if there were any environmental or safety liabilities associated with them. In 2019, LM formally accepted responsibility for these sites off the NNSS where non-nuclear explosive tests were conducted or where underground nuclear tests were proposed as part of the Plowshare and Vela Uniform programs but were never conducted. LM responsibilities will include maintaining institutional knowledge of the sites, responding to public inquiries, and addressing any concerns at each site. To minimize risk associated with site management, LM has archived all historical records compiled by DRI and has performed limited investigations at sites identified by the prior studies as having a higher potential liability. Preserving records related to site operations reduces the risk of doing unnecessary site investigations in the future caused by the loss of institutional knowledge. During the investigations, some maintenance needs were identified and will be addressed by the end of FY 2021. At the end of FY 2021, investigations, maintenance, and archiving activities will be complete. Remnants of test activities found at sites include craters, mud pits, debris, and open boreholes. Open boreholes are being plugged and abandoned in accordance with state regulatory standards. Other issues are being addressed in accordance with land owner requests and preferences as well as state regulations. Archiving activities include the development of project summaries identifying key operational details and current condition to allow site managers to be easily briefed. The LM experience at non-nuclear Plowshare and Vela Uniform sites applies to other programs where there is the potential for liability associated with the non-nuclear aspects of nuclear programs. This may include support activities or early phases of planned nuclear projects. Preserving institutional knowledge enables land managers to adequately address any concerns associated with operations and lowers risk. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 12: Effective Aspects of the 2016 Consent Order between DOE-EM-LA Field Office - NM Environment Department and Identifying Comparable Approaches

This panel focused on the extremely effective 2016 Compliance Order on Consent executed between the US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management - Los Alamos Field Office (EM-LA) and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) and highlights practices and concepts toward developing an environmental compliance agreement that is mutually productive to both the NMED and the DOE. To further demonstrate successful practices, the panel also highlighted another very effective compliance agreement with comparable approaches - the 1993 Savannah River Site (SRS) Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) executed between DOE, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EM-LA, NMED, SRS, and SCDHEC representatives provided attendees an opportunity to understand and compare extremely effective approaches to regulatory compliance across the complex.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 2: Hot Topics in US DOE Environmental Management

The well-attended Panel Session was chaired by Martin Schneider. The four panelists did not provide presentations. Rather the session was a discussion focusing on pressing issues facing US DOE Environmental Management (EM) sites and how the program is moving forward. The session began by momentarily reflecting on a success: the three Tank Waste Treatment Facilities will soon be coming online. These three facilities will treat as much waste in two years as was treated in the past 30 years. That is a significant milestone in progress. Also, safety enhancements at WIPP are a big success. The panelists noted that there will be challenges with the victories of the startup of the Waste Treatment Facilities. Treating tank waste is the last EM mission and will help with the relationships with the stakeholders, regulators and Congress. One of the biggest challenges will be moving back to full operation mode. Although the operation will increase productivity of reducing/managing the tank waste, it will decrease life cycle cost and lessen years of cleanup. The challenge will be having people understand that EM will be operating 24/7 and that maintenance will be key in keeping the operations. EM will be working together with the regulators to show tangible progress that will be effective and efficient. By working together, they can find opportunities/technologies for streamlining and accelerating cleanup. Recent changes to the regulatory framework between DOE-EM Los Alamos Field Office and New Mexico Environmental Department have helped cleanup in Los Alamos. Every year EM and the agencies review progress and come to agreements on the next work priorities. At Savannah River Site, the Federal Facility Agreement among EM, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed a small core team that work are shared by together in resolving issues that come up. The discussion moved on to how progress can be made by sharing lessons learned among the contractors. An example of how these learned lessons can be shared is that key representatives from projects across the EM sites participate in various forums to review/contribute to the work planned. Other opportunities can be by temporary assignments of DOE staff to gain experience and by monthly EM Headquarters report that provide the lessons learned across the EM sites. The panelists discussed how skyline changes are the best examples of tangible progress. Decontamination and Demolition (D and D) of structures are the easiest tangible progress that can be seen. Whereas tank waste cleanup is the hardest to see. Disposal of waste onsite versus offsite is another challenge, and timely discussions are necessary to get to the best value to the government.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

A Preliminary Radiological Risk Assessment Model for Disposition of Remote-Handled Transuranic Wastes at Los Alamos National Laboratory Area G - 20116

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) operates a low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal site at Material Disposal Area G, in Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA. Area G has been the primary LLW disposal site for Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) since the 1960's. In addition to LLW, Area G is host to a variety of other wastes, the disposition of which must be determined before closure of the site. A probabilistic Radiological Risk Assessment (RRA) for Area G is used in order to support decision making regarding some wastes that are not addressed in the extant Area G Performance Assessment (PA) and Composite Analysis (CA). Between 1979 and 1987, 33 special shafts were augered into the Bandelier Tuff at Area G. This volcanic tuff is present across Pajarito Plateau on the eastern slopes of the Jemez Mountains, and varies widely in its consistency, from weakly indurated non-welded layers to welded layers that uphold the mesa cliffs of the Plateau. These mesas are home to LANL, Area G, and the townsites of Los Alamos and White Rock, with residences about 1400 m from Area G. The 33 Shafts were lined with steel casing, and contain remote-handled (RH) transuranic wastes (TRU) resulting from experiments and analysis performed in special glove boxes at the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) facility at LANL. Some of these wastes originated as used nuclear fuel. The purpose of the Area G RRA is to evaluate the potential future risk to humans and the environment from the RH TRU in the 33 Shafts in the context of the risk associated with the surrounding wastes at Area G. The analysis is responsive to expectations outlined in DOE Order 458.1, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, and is informed by the Manual and Guidance accompanying DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management. Because the waste meets the definition of TRU, the regulatory context necessarily takes into consideration the regulation governing the disposal of TRU from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): 40 CFR 191, Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes. Given the broader regulatory context for the RRA, the analysis is subject to different assumptions from those made in the existing DOE O 435.1 PA and CA, such as allowing for future occupation of the site. The analysis begins with a comprehensive evaluation of features, events, processes, and exposure scenarios (FEPS) for Area G and the wastes it contains. These FEPSs are screened to eliminate from further consideration those of extremely low probability and/or consequence, and a conceptual site model (CSM) is subsequently developed. The scope and structure of the Area G RRA Model is informed by this CSM, and the Area G RRA Model is developed using the GoldSim systems analysis modeling platform. This paper presents the initial version of a defensible, transparent, and reasonably realistic model, which is based on the state of knowledge of the wastes, the site, and the FEPSs that govern contaminant transport from wastes into the environment and subsequent exposures to humans and other biota. Probabilistic model input distributions represent uncertainties inherent in the real and modeled systems. The results of the Area G RRA Model inform decisions regarding the disposition of the RH TRU in the 33 Shafts. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

A Rapid Sequential Separation Method for Determination of Actinides and TENORM in Fracking Wastes - 20223

With recent advances in unconventional drilling technology in the US and around the world, the risks of environmental contamination and exposure due to technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials (TENORM) from fracking wastes have also surfaced. Although the Permian Basin (southeastern New Mexico, western Texas) has long been a modest producer of oil, the advent of fracking technology a decade ago turned it into hot property for producers. A 2018 assessment of undiscovered, technically recoverable continuous oil and gas resources by the U.S. Geological Survey estimates an average 46.3 billion barrels of oil and 281 trillion cubic feet of gas. This is likely to increase the use of unconventional drilling and TENORM generation. TENORM concentrations in oil and gas exploration and production waste can be several hundred to several thousand times higher than background TENORM concentrations. Both the thorium and uranium decay chains contribute to airborne radionuclides arising from the radon gas escaping the ground and subsequently decaying as airborne particulates. Additionally, radon decay products {sup 210}Pb and {sup 210}Po can build up in scale on the internal surfaces of oil and gas handling pipes and in sludge in refineries, becoming potential inhalation and ingestion hazards for workers. Furthermore, southeastern NM is also home to world's only licensed and operating transuranic nuclear waste repository, the DoE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). Plutonium isotopes ({sup 239+240}Pu) and {sup 241}Am, are expected to account for more than 99% of the total radioactivity scheduled for disposal in the WIPP repository. Thus, an improved understanding of the environmental fate and transport of TENORM, liberated by unconventional drilling, is essential to assess how best to protect individuals and the environment. In this context, accurate measurement of TENORM and actinides in environmental and biological samples is essential. In this presentation, a new sequential method for the separation and pre-concentration of actinides (Pu, Am, Np) and TENORM (Po, U and Th) derived from oil and gas exploration is proposed. The TEVA method involves a rapid co-precipitation step to remove matrix interferences from the samples, followed by plutonium oxidation state adjustment to Pu (IV) and an incubation period of ∼ 1 hour at 50-60 deg. C to allow the resultant Po (II) to oxidize into Po(IV). The polonium, neptunium, thorium and plutonium are then separated on a TEVA column, while americium and uranium are separated on a TRU column. After separation, the alpha counting source was prepared by micro-precipitation with copper sulfide (CuS) for polonium and neodymium fluoride (NdF{sub 3}) for actinides. The efficiency and reliability of the procedures were tested by analyzing filter, drinking water and frack sand samples. The method is simple, robust and can be performed quickly with excellent removal of interferences, high chemical recovery and very good alpha peak resolution. (authors)

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗